Advice needed. 4x5 vs 8x10. Should I upgrade

[Craig Griffiths]

Your advice is needed. I am currently using an Ebony 4x5 camera predominantly for landscapes and am enjoying it immensely. I currently have a 90, 180, 240, and 300mm lens. However, I am curious about 8x10 and thinking of adding an 8x10 camera to my current gear with a 400-500mm lens (my 300mm covers 8 x10). I am shooting both black and white and colour transparencies at the moment but would only use black and white for tht 8x10 (maybe the occasional transparency). The majority of my prints are done from 11x14 to 16x20, and I am happy with the quality I am getting, although I would like to get some prints made larger.

I guess the question is whether or not there is any real benefit in moving to a larger format given my normal print size and usage. I understand the issues of greater weight, less depth of field etc, and the initial cost of new gear. However I wonder whether it is worth trying the larger format, or should I stick with the 4x5 and be happy.

Or perhaps I should stop trying to be rational and give in and try it. Or should I spend the money on other lenses or travel costs? What do you think?

[Bruce Watson]

I guess the question is whether or not there is any real benefit in moving to a larger format given my normal print size and usage. I understand the issues of greater weight, less depth of field etc, and the initial cost of new gear. However I wonder whether it is worth trying the larger format, or should I stick with the 4x5 and be happy.

In the end you should do what you want. And no one can tell you want that is but you.

OTOH, I've been down this road myself. My decision was to stick with 5x4. The reasons are many and varied, but the bottom line is that I can make prints as large as 125 x 100 cm (around 50 x 40 inches) from 5x4 with amazing detail and sharpness. Prints in your normal sizes can be exceedingly sharp as you well know. IMHO, 10x8 film will give you precious little gain for a whole lot of extra effort.

One of the biggest reasons for this is the decrease in DOF causing a correspondingly smaller aperture. IOW, 10x8 is almost always limited by diffraction and is therefore often not appreciably sharper than 5x4 even with the 4x increase in film area.

And yet, logic is often not a good reason to pick a format. Many 10x8 shooters just love the bigger ground glass. It can be a tool that is more comfortable for them to work with. And the more comfortable you are with your tools, the easier it is for you to make good art.

[BrianShaw]

Upgrade... I'm afraid I don't know what you are implying. ;)

I agree with Bruce -- go with what your heart says!

[Ed Richards]

How are you making your prints? Unless you are having a lab print them, then you might find that the dark room changes that go with 8x10 are an even bigger issue than the larger and more expensive camera/lenses/film/holders.

[Craig Griffiths]

thank you gentlemen for your responses.

Hadnt factored in the printing costs as I was thinking of scanning and digital output. That was the reason for limiting to 8x10 and not larger.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a little more travel and a lot more film. After all as Bruce said, the print quality is not bad at all. Thanks for the responses.

[Ted Harris]

If you have no problems with the size and weight (and the cost) then give it a try and see if it suits you but carefuly evaluat these changes first. Your new 8x10 will be much larger, will weigh 3 to 4 times as much (maybe a hair less if you get a real lightweight), will cost at least 1500 (that is about the least expensive entry level) and much more if you are going to get another Ebony. Film holders are much heavier, film is more expensive, you may need a heavier tripod, etc. Then there is the enlarger issue mentioned above. If you have only got an 8 foot normal ceiling you likely won't have room for an 8x10 enlarger (assuming you can find one).

As long as none of the above deter you try it .... there are lots of folks here who shoot 8x10. I shoot 8x10, but not much. Just make sure you consider all the aspects of the format before making a big investment. You should also see if you can rent some gear for a week.

[Thalmees]

Your advice is needed. I am currently using an Ebony 4x5 camera predominantly for landscapes and am enjoying it immensely. I am shooting both black and white and colour transparencies at the moment but would only use black and white for tht 8x10 (maybe the occasional transparency). The majority of my prints are done from 11x14 to 16x20, and I am happy with the quality I am getting, although I would like to get some prints made larger.
I guess the question is whether or not there is any real benefit in moving to a larger format given my normal print size and usage. I understand the issues of greater weight, less depth of field etc, and the initial cost of new gear. However I wonder whether it is worth trying the larger format, or should I stick with the 4x5 and be happy.
What do you think?
I was under the influence of the same thinking, for some time. I've only one year experience in LF gear(Sinar F2 Monorail + lenses) & no meaningful contact print could be made from 4X5 film.
Of course, bigger film, for better quality. But, that should be on some thing to be paid.
I'm also shooting landscapes predominantly. You can not compare portability of Monorails with the folding field Ebonys. Even, I think an 8X10 Ebony(or field) camera, is similar to 4X5 Monorail, in terms of portability, if not better.
As for the quality, contact prints from 8X10 film, is the only advantage you may get over your Ebony 4x5(as far as I think). And this advantage is considerable in my opinion.
If I ever made the move toward 8X10 film, it should be with a folding field camera, and for the contact B&W prints.
Good luck.

[Jack Flesher]

Well, I will offer a slightly different point of view... Surprise, I know :)

Using the 8x10 is a different experience than using a 4x5. Sure, the mechanics of capturing the image are the same, but the philosophy becomes a little different, at least it does for me. I find I am a bit more deliberate when using the 8x10, I take more time to set up the composition and certainly pay more attention to the details of the image -- of course they're easier to see on the 8x10 GG, so that part came kind of naturally for me. I also find it easier to focus the 8x10 critically -- again, easier to see what is going on on that big GG.

As for detail, you are not going to gain much at 16x20 print sizes, but I'll disagree with the poster above in that I can see a significant difference in a 40x50 print from an 8x10 neg compared to one made with a 4x5 neg. But YMMV...

As for weight, it's more, but not three times in my case. My pack full of 4x5, 5 lenses and a box of Quickloads (20 sheets) weighs about 22 pounds. By contrast, my 8x10 pack with three lenses and three holders (6 sheets) weighs about 28 pounds.

As for cost, you already mentioned your 300 covers -- and I am willing to bet your 240 will too. Also, I find I use more normal focal lengths when shooting 8x10 so you may not need to acquire a 500/600 until after you decide if it will stick. Thus you really can get into it with a decent used $1000 camera (I use an older style Arca monorail, FWIW) and around $400 worth of film holders and changing tent -- all of which will be pretty easy to sell on this forum for about what you paid for them if it doesn't suit...

So my .03 is to give it a whirl -- what do you have to lose?

Cheers,

[Eric Leppanen]

I've been shooting LF for about six years now. My first three years were spent shooting exclusively 4x5, the last three years mostly 8x10. I shoot both color (drum scan and digital prints) and B&W (mostly traditional analog prints). I shoot mostly landscape and architecture, with an occasional portrait thrown in.

For color work, to my eye 8x10 potentially starts producing noticeably superior prints at print sizes of 20x24" and larger. I have a 20x24" Chromira print of Bryce Canyon on my living wall that blows away anything I've seen produced with 4x5 (more fine detail on the distant pine trees, more subtle tonal transitions between the rocks, etc.). I have it mounted alongside several 16x20" 4x5-based prints, and onlookers always gravitate immediately to the 8x10-based 20x24" print. It is a real visual tour-de-force, if I may say so myself.

However, the Bryce Canyon print was scanned from a transparency shot at f/22, which is unusual in the 8x10 world. Usually it is necessary to stop down to f/32 or smaller to get everything in focus with 8x10. By the time you stop down to f/64, lens diffraction is so severe that 8x10 produces little benefit versus 4x5 (and can even be worse due to camera shake caused by slow shutter speeds).

As a result of all this, I shoot both 4x5 and 8x10 systems. I use 8x10 when I can keep lens diffraction and shutter speeds reasonable (i.e. f/stop no smaller than f/45, preferably f/32). In practice, I find myself shooting 8x10 maybe 70% of the time.

For B&W, I think B&W film drum scans a bit more effectively than color film (fewer emulsion layers, clearer highlights, etc.), so the difference between 4x5 and 8x10 formats is a bit closer. I recently did a test comparing 16x20" B&W prints (analog and digital) of the same subject shot with both 4x5 and 8x10. All the prints were superb, but the 8x10-based prints were a bit "superber" (more visible detail, better tonality). However, the differences were subtle and most onlookers didn't notice the difference until the 4x5 and 8x10 prints were placed side-by-side. So I am inclined to more frequently use 4x5 for B&W unless I really want to print big (or want contact prints).

As far as convenience and ease-of-use is concerned, it's no contest: 4x5 with Quickloads/Readyloads is far, far lighter, more compact, and easier to use than 8x10. No changing tent or dust worries is worth the price of admission by itself.

So if you plan to print no larger than 16x20", I'd suggest staying with 4x5 and enjoy the ride. If you are really yearning to make the occasional extra large print to put over the sofa or fireplace, than I'd suggest buying an inexpensive 8x10 camera, a couple lenses, and a few film holders as a second camera system, and keep it in reserve for those cases where it is best suited.

[Donald Miller]

I began shooting 4X5 about twenty something years ago. I began shooting 8X10 followed soon thereafter with 12X20 about six years ago. Because of my age etc, I moved out of 12X20 after about a year. I still have 8X10 and 4X5 today and shoot 4X5 far more than I do 8X10. I personally do not like 4X5 enlarged any larger than 11X14 because the quality is not to my standards beyond that size.

I recently bought 5X7 since I have equipment to enlarge that format. I think that it may be an ideal compromise for me. All formats have their strengths and weaknesses. It all depends on what a person wants to do.

[Brian Ellis]

I wouldn't do it solely for the purpose of improved technical quality with 11x14 and 16x20 prints. I don't think you'll notice any difference at all between 4x5 and 8x10 at those print sizes. If you wanted to contact print, or make really big prints, or use an alt process or just thought you'd enjoy tusing 8x10 that might be different but for an improvement in print quality at the print sizes you mention, I don't think you'd see it.

I've owned three 8x10 cameras at different times in the last six years so clearly I've vacillated a lot about that format. The problem was that I really enjoyed using 8x10. I found it such a pleasure to compose with the 8x10 ground glass and I just liked handling the the bigger film, bigger negative holders, etc. But in the end (at least I hope the last 8x10 was the end) I decided that the ability to make contact prints (which was one of my main reasons for getting into 8x10 in the first place) plus the pleasure of use weren't worth the difficulty of carrying it around. Also, I think my range of subject matter was narrowed because I couldn't get it to difficult places and because of the shorter range of focal length lenses that I could use with 8x10. With 4x5 I often use a 300mm lens but that's a 600mm lens in 8x10 and dealing with a bellows extension of 24+ inches isn't easy. So with 8x10 I found myself photographing scenes that lent themselves to shorter lenses and my photographs seemed to have a certain sameness about them that isn't present with smaller formats.

But like they say, you only go around once, this isn't a dress rehearsal, etc. etc. If you think you might like it give it a try. If you buy good equipment used you should be able to sell it for what you paid for it.

[CXC]

Reasons to step up to 8x10:
1. Contact prints, or Polaroids.
2. Big ground glass.
3. Why not, just for fun.

Reasons not too:
A. A big expensive hassle.
B. Difference may be none-to-minor unless contacting or enlarging really big.
C. Big lenses mean really short DOF.
D. No ReadyLoads. If you are using them, buy a couple trad holders for your 4x5 and a little box of film, try it out, it's a drag.

[Capocheny]

Craig,

If you reside in a city where you can rent an 8x10... that's what I'd recommend you doing. Enjoy it for a weekend...

IMHO, shooting 8x10 is quite different from shooting 4x5.

The other format you might want to consider (if you're looking for a larger negative size) is 5x7. The aspect ratio is different from 4x5 or 8x10.

I shoot all 3 formats and every time I see that large 8x10 negative... it never fails to amaze me (especially when everything comes together in the way of composition, subject matter, and exposure. :))

Cheers

[Ole Tjugen]

I'll second the 5x7" suggestion. Chances are that you can use all the lenses you already have, and a 90mm is seriously wide on 5x7"!

The negative is significantly larger than 4x5", large enough to make decent contact prints. It's also small enough that enlargers are possible to fit in a normal-size darkroom, and will still allow prints up to - I don't know actually, but there's plenty of space left when I print to 20x24"! I've had a slide scanned and printed at 40x56", and there's still more to go before grain dominates over detail with my nose pressed to the print.

[Gary Smith]

I went through this debate several months ago. For quite a while I was very happy with 4x5, still use it extensively. I fell into a very good deal on an 8x10 and couple of lenses. I find while the general motions are the same, I spend alot more time composing my shots and finding my results to be quite a bit better. 8x10 has really forced me to slow down and think about my shots more. The contact prints I have made so far, seem to have a presence that is lacking in my 4x5 enlargments. Not something I can really explain.

The other reason I wanted to try 8x10 was to do some alternative processes, 4x5 was just to small for my tastes.

Seriously I think you should give it a try, I think you will be very pleased.

Hope it helps.

Gary

[Rory_5244]

Hi Hi. Other than the fact that there are no QuickLoads in 8x10, I find shooting this format actually EASIER than 4x5. Isn't that weird? Focusing and evaluating a scene are a marvel compared to the 4x5 ground-glass viewing experience. Depth of field problems are not really that insurmountable. I can get most of the pictures I want with a lens that has precious little coverage for 8x10. I don't take many pictures, so costs are less than my outlay for 4x5 film and processing. Transparencies on a lightbox are 'da bomb'. And, best of all, as evidenced at a recent small exhibition here (in Trinidad), a big print will SHAME (did I say SHAME?) all them Canon 5D wannabe photo studs.

[CXC]

Allow me to repeat myself: 5x7 gives you all of the disadvantages of 8x10 with only half of the gain over 4x5.

Of course many disagree -- in fact reading their opinions here convinced me to give 5x7 a chance in the first place.

[John Kasaian]

Go ahead and shoot 'em all, then decide! ;)

[Stephen Willard]

I went through the same investigation about 3 years ago and decided that 8x10 was just not that portable, and I went with a 5x7. The difference between 8x10 and 5x7 is not that much, but the difference between 4x5 and 5x7 is significant. Using an 10x grain focuser I can see the grain in Kodak Portra 160 VC when making an 8x10 print from a 4x5 negative using my enlarger. I am not able see grain with a 5x7 negative until I am up to a 16x20 print size.

All of my existing lenses work with 5x7, and my 5x7 camera is lighter then my 4x5 camera. I also do a have 4x5 reducing back I use when need more movement, greater telephoto work, or macro photography.

The one draw back is there is not a lot of 5x7 film around unless you cut your from 8x10 which I do.

[Ken Lee]

Unless you intend to make direct contact prints, 8x10 has few advantages.

Nowadays, with a decent scanner and printer, you can make digital negatives of any size you like. You can make a fine 8x10 or 7x17 contact prints in Pt/Pd or Silver...from a color slide if you like... but don't tell those ULF guys ;)

There is a "sweet-spot" where quality, portability, affordability, and availability reach their closest point of conjunction. For most people, it is around 4x5 and 5x7.

It's not too hard to cut film down to size, if you have a good trimmer. With an InfraRed viewing device, it's no different than working in daylight.